I was going to write a review of Manville and Ober's brand-new survey of democracy in four societies, but I got sidetracked. So instead, I wrote about how since the Republican party has no...
"even if you believe members of the other party are misguided or misinformed, you still regard them as fellow passengers on the same boat"
Ah, but you see, *your* end of the boat is sinking.
Manville & Ober's formulation is interesting because it is stronger than the familiar "republic without republicans" formulation. America still has lots of republicans, a majority I should think. Just not in the Republican party.
To echo your remark of yesterday, "It IS depressing, isn't it?"
The way I describe it is, a democratic republic must rely on neighbors meeting over the fence after the election, and the loser (tending to some domestic chore like putting oil into her mower - in a healthy democracy, the political never utterly dominates the quotidian) saying to the winner, "Well, you guys won. Congratulations. Now let's see how you do."
Democrats until recently have done this, mostly. I remember 2004, when I was depressed at the outcome, cleaning out the garage in my red neighborhood in a blue state. I was consciously working through my disappointment, trying to work my way up to giving the winners the benefit of the doubt. After all, 2004 was the only time in the last 35 years when a Republican won more than 50% of the popular vote. And they were my neighbors, after all.
But now we are no longer neighbors. We don't live where they live. The people meeting over back fences are spinning each other up with Fox News/OAN/NewsMax blood libels. And we no longer meet with people who disagree with us either; and the few times we do, we disagree on the basic facts, not just goals or means. To very roughly paraphrase Lincoln, "The realities of neither side could be completely true; those of one side must needs be false."
One hopes that other passages of that speech are not also echoed: "Neither party expected for the [conflict] the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of [any such fundamental] conflict might [not exist at all in reality]. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same [Constitution] and [honor the same Framers] and each invokes [their] aid against the other. It may seem strange that any [citizens] should dare to ask a just God's assistance in [dehumanizing their fellow citizens and targeting them with blood libels for short-term political gain], but let us judge not that we be not judged."
Yes, I hope, with Ebenezer Scrooge, that these are"shadows of the things that May be only, not shadows of the things that Will be."
There's that inconvenient fact that the members of one political faction started openly saying that they were looking for a signal to start mass killing of their political opponents and the "other" in general - and started purchasing arms and ammunition intended for that purpose in large quantity.
I think you can go back to Goldwater's 64 campaign, which resurrected the Dems as commies rhetoric which Ike avoided. "None Dare Call It Treason" is the urtext: once you call your opponents traitors, you've destroyed the comity democracy depends on.
Well, and McCarthy before that, who was the first one to popularize Dems traitors and commies. (There certainly were some folks saying that about the New Deal all along, but none of them really got traction until the Red Scare.) If only Ike had actually successfully excised those madmen from the GOP.
Well he _tried_ -- Ike actively worked to neutralize McCarthy ( https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2015/fall/ike-mccarthy.pdf ), and called repeatedly, in public and private, for the GOP to act more moderately ( https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/ ). As he said in that latter linked letter, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Sadly, the GOP in fact did return to trying to undermine all of those programs, and they have managed to overcome unfavorable demographics, at least for now, thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Electoral College and the Senate, and a lot of culture war noise. They remain stupid, but their numbers are a lot less negligible now. Still not anywhere near a majority of the country, but enough to hold the country hostage.
At some point I'd love to read M&O's book since they might address this aspect, but I've long suspected that this fundamentally dishonest approach to politics has been greatly abetted by the decay of intermediary institutions since the 1970s.
In its simplest form, I think that a geographically diffuse set of 'petty elites' could successfully check the mendacity of the modern Republican Party by anchoring people in their communities to various aspects of reality on which they are trusted brokers. The problem then becomes that the intermediary institutions (churches being the classic example) are required for the various elites to exercise influence effectively because the institutions allow elite actors to launder trust through shared institutional membership with non-elites. It's an idea I'd love to see proper social scientists test (I have some speculative study designs but I haven't had time to conduct them).
I'm quite involved in my local government -- I'm a Planning Commissioner, and I ran for City Council last year and got 45% of the vote against a two-term incumbent, while managing to remain on good terms with said incumbent (we both tried to be clear in our voter communications that we agree on some issues and disagree on others, but we respected voters regardless of which of us they picked). And yeah, I think our politics is healthier when people are more focused on local issues that they can see and understand. The nationalization of media, and the attendant _loss_ of interest in local government, is a disaster, at both ends of the scale. Trying to campaign for local office, you encounter a ton of alienated people who insist that all politicians are corrupt and bad, and out to cheat the taxpayer -- spending too much time listening to talk radio shouters. (I have news for you, bud, I am not paid at all for my service on PlanCom, and the "stipend" for Council is less than minimum wage. I do this stuff because I think maybe I can make the world just a tiny bit better.) People should spend more time paying attention to the stuff they could actually influence.
"Third, the Reagan Revolution’s impact on the dollar and interest rates had unleashed a market-driven dismantling of America’s valuable Midwestern manufacturing, engineering, and production complex." Shouldn't the first proper noun here be Volcker, not Reagan? You might say rates would/could have been lower without the Reagan deficits, but then on the other hand a significant share of the Reagan-era "structural deficit" was higher debt service due to higher rates. I think James Tobin had it right when he wrote in 1982: "Thatcherism may be American policy, too, but its author is not Ronald Reagan. It is Fed Chairman Paul Volcker." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/08/15/stop-volcker-from-killing-the-economy/33a31ebc-a9be-4d8a-af21-cac6c32f2052/)
No, the independent variable (assuming the Fed has a policy on inflation) is fiscal policy. The blame is squarely on Reagan and Democrats that did not even try to pushback on the revenue loss. The secular error of the Democratic party is not having a tax reform as a plank, to push for lower deficits as it has with expanding health insurance and now does with climate change. [OK allowing immigration to become an issue about how to exclude lower-value immigrant instead of recruiting high value immigrants.] We have become infected by Republican zero-sum thinking.
Just to clarify: your view is that Fed policy does not affect investment and exchange rates, or that it does have those effects but the Fed is institutionally obliged to move in that direction once budget deficits surpass a certain level?
This is a great summary of how we got to this most dangerous place. The key points here are the failure of both the Left and Right public policies with nothing new coming down the lane. Not all problems have solutions but boy we certainly need something to better tie the nation together. The vision on the right is a rejection of patriotism tied to the constitution and replacing it with an ethnic ideology that rejects certain groups and religions as not true Americans. And on the left we have a vision of a college educated elite that reminds one of Vonnegut's early novel, Piano Player, where those without high level of technical skills are controlled rather than included.
"even if you believe members of the other party are misguided or misinformed, you still regard them as fellow passengers on the same boat"
Ah, but you see, *your* end of the boat is sinking.
Manville & Ober's formulation is interesting because it is stronger than the familiar "republic without republicans" formulation. America still has lots of republicans, a majority I should think. Just not in the Republican party.
To echo your remark of yesterday, "It IS depressing, isn't it?"
The way I describe it is, a democratic republic must rely on neighbors meeting over the fence after the election, and the loser (tending to some domestic chore like putting oil into her mower - in a healthy democracy, the political never utterly dominates the quotidian) saying to the winner, "Well, you guys won. Congratulations. Now let's see how you do."
Democrats until recently have done this, mostly. I remember 2004, when I was depressed at the outcome, cleaning out the garage in my red neighborhood in a blue state. I was consciously working through my disappointment, trying to work my way up to giving the winners the benefit of the doubt. After all, 2004 was the only time in the last 35 years when a Republican won more than 50% of the popular vote. And they were my neighbors, after all.
But now we are no longer neighbors. We don't live where they live. The people meeting over back fences are spinning each other up with Fox News/OAN/NewsMax blood libels. And we no longer meet with people who disagree with us either; and the few times we do, we disagree on the basic facts, not just goals or means. To very roughly paraphrase Lincoln, "The realities of neither side could be completely true; those of one side must needs be false."
One hopes that other passages of that speech are not also echoed: "Neither party expected for the [conflict] the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of [any such fundamental] conflict might [not exist at all in reality]. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same [Constitution] and [honor the same Framers] and each invokes [their] aid against the other. It may seem strange that any [citizens] should dare to ask a just God's assistance in [dehumanizing their fellow citizens and targeting them with blood libels for short-term political gain], but let us judge not that we be not judged."
Yes, I hope, with Ebenezer Scrooge, that these are"shadows of the things that May be only, not shadows of the things that Will be."
But I'm depressed now, along with you.
There's that inconvenient fact that the members of one political faction started openly saying that they were looking for a signal to start mass killing of their political opponents and the "other" in general - and started purchasing arms and ammunition intended for that purpose in large quantity.
Yeah but let’s be fair. Biden asked what time it was when he got off a plane in India. Potayto potahto...
I think you can go back to Goldwater's 64 campaign, which resurrected the Dems as commies rhetoric which Ike avoided. "None Dare Call It Treason" is the urtext: once you call your opponents traitors, you've destroyed the comity democracy depends on.
Well, and McCarthy before that, who was the first one to popularize Dems traitors and commies. (There certainly were some folks saying that about the New Deal all along, but none of them really got traction until the Red Scare.) If only Ike had actually successfully excised those madmen from the GOP.
Good point! Thank you! Agreed. We'd be better off had Ike taken the lead here.
Well he _tried_ -- Ike actively worked to neutralize McCarthy ( https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2015/fall/ike-mccarthy.pdf ), and called repeatedly, in public and private, for the GOP to act more moderately ( https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/ ). As he said in that latter linked letter, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Sadly, the GOP in fact did return to trying to undermine all of those programs, and they have managed to overcome unfavorable demographics, at least for now, thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, the Electoral College and the Senate, and a lot of culture war noise. They remain stupid, but their numbers are a lot less negligible now. Still not anywhere near a majority of the country, but enough to hold the country hostage.
At some point I'd love to read M&O's book since they might address this aspect, but I've long suspected that this fundamentally dishonest approach to politics has been greatly abetted by the decay of intermediary institutions since the 1970s.
In its simplest form, I think that a geographically diffuse set of 'petty elites' could successfully check the mendacity of the modern Republican Party by anchoring people in their communities to various aspects of reality on which they are trusted brokers. The problem then becomes that the intermediary institutions (churches being the classic example) are required for the various elites to exercise influence effectively because the institutions allow elite actors to launder trust through shared institutional membership with non-elites. It's an idea I'd love to see proper social scientists test (I have some speculative study designs but I haven't had time to conduct them).
I'm quite involved in my local government -- I'm a Planning Commissioner, and I ran for City Council last year and got 45% of the vote against a two-term incumbent, while managing to remain on good terms with said incumbent (we both tried to be clear in our voter communications that we agree on some issues and disagree on others, but we respected voters regardless of which of us they picked). And yeah, I think our politics is healthier when people are more focused on local issues that they can see and understand. The nationalization of media, and the attendant _loss_ of interest in local government, is a disaster, at both ends of the scale. Trying to campaign for local office, you encounter a ton of alienated people who insist that all politicians are corrupt and bad, and out to cheat the taxpayer -- spending too much time listening to talk radio shouters. (I have news for you, bud, I am not paid at all for my service on PlanCom, and the "stipend" for Council is less than minimum wage. I do this stuff because I think maybe I can make the world just a tiny bit better.) People should spend more time paying attention to the stuff they could actually influence.
"Third, the Reagan Revolution’s impact on the dollar and interest rates had unleashed a market-driven dismantling of America’s valuable Midwestern manufacturing, engineering, and production complex." Shouldn't the first proper noun here be Volcker, not Reagan? You might say rates would/could have been lower without the Reagan deficits, but then on the other hand a significant share of the Reagan-era "structural deficit" was higher debt service due to higher rates. I think James Tobin had it right when he wrote in 1982: "Thatcherism may be American policy, too, but its author is not Ronald Reagan. It is Fed Chairman Paul Volcker." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/08/15/stop-volcker-from-killing-the-economy/33a31ebc-a9be-4d8a-af21-cac6c32f2052/)
No, the independent variable (assuming the Fed has a policy on inflation) is fiscal policy. The blame is squarely on Reagan and Democrats that did not even try to pushback on the revenue loss. The secular error of the Democratic party is not having a tax reform as a plank, to push for lower deficits as it has with expanding health insurance and now does with climate change. [OK allowing immigration to become an issue about how to exclude lower-value immigrant instead of recruiting high value immigrants.] We have become infected by Republican zero-sum thinking.
Just to clarify: your view is that Fed policy does not affect investment and exchange rates, or that it does have those effects but the Fed is institutionally obliged to move in that direction once budget deficits surpass a certain level?
This is a great summary of how we got to this most dangerous place. The key points here are the failure of both the Left and Right public policies with nothing new coming down the lane. Not all problems have solutions but boy we certainly need something to better tie the nation together. The vision on the right is a rejection of patriotism tied to the constitution and replacing it with an ethnic ideology that rejects certain groups and religions as not true Americans. And on the left we have a vision of a college educated elite that reminds one of Vonnegut's early novel, Piano Player, where those without high level of technical skills are controlled rather than included.